Imposing criminal liability for negligence have been subject of great debate in the common law world and the meaning of the same is under dispute. Negligence is made the mental element of several offences described in the Indian Penal Code. The Code lacks a general part and it had been the judiciary that was vested with the task of defining and interpreting the various concepts under it. This research paper enquires into how the concept of negligence had been defined by the Indian Judiciary. It is a critical analysis of judicial pronouncements. It also looks into the difference of negligence in civil and criminal law and how the courts have been trying to reflect this while making decisions. It has been observed that negligence has been defined in terms of lack od proper care and caution. In order to distinguish negligence found and label it as ‘criminal’, various means have been employed. The resort to a demand for a higher degree of negligence, qualifying the term negligence with gross and requiring moral blameworthiness by asserting on the relevance of the common law doctrine of mens rea had been all observed in case laws. This paper reveals that the approach had not been consistent. While it regards the attempt at definition by the judiciary, it condemns the way negligence have been tried to be qualified especially in the absence of a legislative hint to that effect.